Davidson County Schools nears possible settlement in lawsuit after student suspended for alleged ‘racially motivated comment'
DAVIDSON COUNTY, N.C. (WGHP) – Davidson County Schools may soon settle a lawsuit with a family after a
'On Friday, we filed a motion asking the court to approve a settlement that would resolve this matter,' said Dean McGee, senior counsel for Educational Freedom at the Liberty Justice Center. 'Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final. We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name.'
The incident happened on April 9, 2024, at Central Davidson High School.
'On April 9, my son received a write-up stating that he violated a board of education policy by using or making a racially motivated comment, saying that an alien needs a green card,' the boy's mother, Leah McGhee, said.
The lawsuit claims the teen left class to go to the bathroom. He missed some of the lesson, and when he came back, the word 'aliens' was used during class discussion.
The student reportedly asked if 'aliens' referred to 'space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards' and the teacher said to 'watch your mouth.'
According to the suit, a Hispanic male classmate then threatened to beat the student up. That same day, the 16-year-old was suspended for three days.
'I cannot appeal this suspension since it is less than 10 days. Racism is only a three-day suspension with no appeal when it should be a top-tier punishment,' Leah McGhee said.
The 16-year-old is no longer enrolled at the school because, according to the lawsuit, he received threats and was harassed about this situation.
The student's parents, Leah and Chad McGhee, filed a lawsuit on behalf of their 16-year-old son and called on the school to reverse the suspension and remove it from the student's record.
The lawsuit argues that the words 'alien,' 'illegal alien' and 'green cards' are common terms used in both state and federal law. It goes on to say the punishment was too harsh and his comment should have been protected under his First Amendment rights of free speech.
'There is nothing inappropriate about saying aliens need green cards, and there certainly isn't a case for racism due to the fact that alien is not a race,' Leah told the school board in May 2024.
The McGhee family asked the courts to require a public apology from the school board, reverse the suspension, remove it from the student's record, remove unexcused absences because of the suspension, remove all references from his record that he used racially motivated, inappropriate, or insensitive language in class and monetary damages determined during trial.
A spokesperson for the school district previously said they are unable to comment due to pending litigation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum. "If you look at what's happening around the world, it's clear we're living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations," Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ's May letter. Rumble, Trump Media Declare 'Complete Victory For Free Speech' In Win Against Brazilian Judge "The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We're proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority." Read On The Fox News App Moraes is now in the U.S. government's crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. Trump-backed Media Company Sues Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Claims He's Illegally Censoring Free Speech The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes' orders are not enforceable in the U.S. "These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties," the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. "We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States." The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is "unprecedented" and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. "The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented," Pavlovski said. "It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that's good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere." Rumble Reveals Censorship Demands From Surprising List Of Countries As Ceo To Testify On Free Speech Threats The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. The DOJ's letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption. "We've seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens," Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. "What they're now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil's borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?" Brazilian Ex-president Bolsonaro Ordered To Stand Trial Over Alleged Coup Plan Rubio responded, "That's under review right now, and it's a great, great possibility that will happen." Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found "complicit" in censoring Americans. "For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights," Rubio wrote on X. "Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority." "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country," Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. "Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over." Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election results. Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slammed the U.S. for threatening sanctions against Moraes in comment this week. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," da Silva said Tuesday, according to Reuters. The Brazilian president added that the U.S. should understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Fox News Digital reached out to Moraes' office Tuesday but did not immediately receive a article source: Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With enough signatures, marijuana amendment will be reviewed by Florida Supreme Court
A ballot initiative to permit recreational use of marijuana for adults in Florida obtained enough signatures this week to trigger a legally-mandated financial and judicial review. Smart and Safe Florida, the group sponsoring the constitutional amendment, gathered more than 377,000 signatures verified by local elections supervisors, according to the state Division of Elections website. This surpasses a threshold of 220,000 signatures for the state-required review. Attorney General James Uthmeier must now transmit the language to be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, which must find clear, single-subject language in the proposed ballot text. The initiative allows adults at least 21 years old to possess, purchase or use marijuana for nonmedical purposes. It also prohibits marketing toward children and smoking or vaping in public. This language is slightly different from a marijuana initiative last year that gathered about 56% support from Florida voters, falling short of the state's 60% threshold needed for passage. It initially did not specify any prohibitions for marketing toward children or public use of marijuana. 2024 Elections: Recreational marijuana in Florida snuffed out after amendment falls short of 60% In addition to its multiple hurdles to become a proposed amendment on the 2026 midterm ballot, Smart & Safe Florida is arguing that a new state law on ballot petitions is infringing on First Amendment rights. The organization filed an emergency motion to a federal judge May 30, saying the state's new prohibition on non-resident petition circulators has "injured" the organization's "number of people to carry their message to the public." The law, signed promptly by Gov. Ron DeSantis, increased restrictions and potential penalties to groups seeking to propose a ballot initiative. One such restriction is by limiting each volunteer to only collect 25 petitions, which Smart & Safe Florida argued in their motion already has limited the capability of their volunteer network. In their motion, the organization said that the state law's nonresident provision is "very likely the difference between" the amendment getting on the ballot or not. The marijuana amendment's downfall was a shocking result in the November elections, since many surveys found enough support from Floridians for it to pass and it was also among the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in the country. Yet the campaign against it, spearheaded by DeSantis and other state leaders, included months spent arguing its passage would have deep implications for the state's tourism. DeSantis said at the time that Florida residents would smell a weed stench in the air, and he said the proposal's purpose was mainly to benefit large marijuana companies seeking profits. More recently, the money to defeat the marijuana initiative was called into question by House lawmakers who investigated the foundation behind First Lady Casey DeSantis' signature initiative, Hope Florida. Lawmakers accused the fundraising arm of that program of improperly funneling part of a $67 million Medicaid contractor's settlement to the political committee that targeted the ballot amendment, headed by Uthmeier, the governor's then-chief of staff. Round two: After 2024 failure, backers of Florida recreational marijuana amendment try again for 2026 This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Recreational marijuana effort in Florida advances toward 2026 ballot
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Florida appeals federal judge's ruling which blocks enforcement of social media ban for kids
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier quickly appealed after a federal judge Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking a 2024 state law aimed at keeping children off social media platforms. Uthmeier, who is the defendant in a lawsuit filed by two tech-industry groups, filed a notice of appeal to Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Wilson's ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As is common, the notice did not detail arguments Uthmeier will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court. Uthmeier also is battling Snap Inc., the operator of Snapchat, in a separate lawsuit about whether the social media company has violated the law. The law, which was one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social media accounts on certain platforms, though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts. The law does not directly identify which platforms would be affected by the regulations. But it includes a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, "addictive features" and live streaming. Walker's ruling Tuesday said, for example, it would apply to Snapchat and YouTube, which are owned by Google. In the ruling, Walker said the law likely violates First Amendment rights, siding with arguments raised by the industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. The groups filed the lawsuit in October. Walker anticipated in Tuesday's ruling that Uthmeier would appeal the preliminary injunction to the Atlanta-based appeals court. He declined to put his ruling on hold while the appeal plays out. "Defendant has every right to appeal, and this court sees no reason to delay defendant in seeking an appeal by requiring him to move to stay," Walker wrote. Parents role in police children's use of social media Supporters of the law have argued it targets addictive features of social media platforms that harm children. But Walker pointed, in part, on the role of parents in policing social media use by their children. "An established principle in the First Amendment context is that enabling individuals to voluntarily restrict problematic content at the receiving end is preferred over restricting speech at the source," Walker wrote in a 58-page ruling. "In this context, that means that parents are best positioned to make the appropriately individualized determinations about whether or when their children should use social media platforms, and if so, which platforms and under what conditions." Florida accuses Snapchat of breaking the law The preliminary injunction applies statewide, but it came amid wrangling in a separate lawsuit that Uthmeier filed in April in state court in Santa Rosa County contending the operator of Snapchat has violated the law. "Despite being subject to HB 3, Snap contracts with and provides accounts to Florida users who it knows are younger than 14," the lawsuit said. "It also fails to seek parental consent before contracting with and providing accounts to Florida users who it knows are 14 or 15 years old. Snap is openly and knowingly violating HB 3, and each violation constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA (a state law known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)." The lawsuit was transferred from state court to federal court through what is known as "removal" by Snap. The company last week asked Walker to put the lawsuit on hold while the broader case filed by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association plays out. If Walker doesn't issue a stay, Snap argued the judge should dismiss the lawsuit. "The statute categorically bars individuals under age 14 from creating accounts on the websites it covers and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, infringing on protected speech of minors," Snap's attorneys wrote. "As numerous courts have concluded, requiring minors to obtain parental consent before accessing 'social media' abridges First Amendment rights." But Uthmeier is trying to get the lawsuit moved back to state court. Walker said in Tuesday's decision he would not rule on Snap's request to put the lawsuit on hold until after he decides whether to send it back to Santa Rosa County.
